Don't sell your Godfather Collection just yet

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by JONA99, Feb 28, 2004.

  1. JONA99

    JONA99 Guest

    Exactly 24 hours after I sold my Godfather Collection in anticipation of May
    11th, the Digital Bits says the reissue will be the EXACT SAME TRANSFER and not
    the restoration we've been hearing about since last fall. I am now officially
    and royally pissed off.
     
    JONA99, Feb 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. It was only the first movie anyway.

    Mike

    JONA99 wrote:
    >
    > Exactly 24 hours after I sold my Godfather Collection in anticipation of May
    > 11th, the Digital Bits says the reissue will be the EXACT SAME TRANSFER and not
    > the restoration we've been hearing about since last fall. I am now officially
    > and royally pissed off.
     
    Michael Rogers, Feb 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JONA99

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "JONA99" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Exactly 24 hours after I sold my Godfather Collection in anticipation

    of
    > May 11th, the Digital Bits says the reissue will be the EXACT SAME
    > TRANSFER and not the restoration we've been hearing about since last
    > fall. I am now officially and royally pissed off.



    Shit! Oh dear!

    Now what? The _Godfather_ collection still sells for $40-50. It seems
    that Paramount wants to release only the first movie as a single and I
    never did figure out who would want _The Godfather_ without _The
    Godfather 2_ and the extras disk.

    That _Godfather 3_ piece of crap just went along for the ride.
     
    Scot Gardner, Feb 29, 2004
    #3
  4. JONA99

    Guest

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:18:13 -0800, "Scot Gardner"
    <> wrote:

    >"JONA99" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Exactly 24 hours after I sold my Godfather Collection in anticipation

    >of
    >> May 11th, the Digital Bits says the reissue will be the EXACT SAME
    >> TRANSFER and not the restoration we've been hearing about since last
    >> fall. I am now officially and royally pissed off.


    I sold mine last year. Since HD DVD is upon us, might as well wait
    for the HD version to come out in 2-3 years by my guesstimation.
     
    , Feb 29, 2004
    #4
  5. JONA99

    JONA99 Guest

    I don't give a shit about Godfather 3 or the extras disc; I just want a decent
    transfer of the first one, was looking forward to May 11, and figured that a
    restored Part Two would be released soon after. (As for the current
    transfers: No, they're NOT supposed to look like that.)
     
    JONA99, Feb 29, 2004
    #5
  6. JONA99

    Jens Thomsen Guest

    JONA99 wrote:

    > (As for the current transfers: No, they're NOT supposed to look like
    > that.)


    Yes, they are. They were approved by Coppola himself.

    Robert Harris had this to say about the DVD on HTF:

    "I've just completed viewing the new DVD of The Godfather.
    After reading the negative responses from this group, I was expecting the
    worst.
    Understanding that reproduction results can vary from player to player, I'm
    seeing no problems whatsoever on my playback equipment.
    The look, the texture, the color palette of the original dye transfer prints
    are, IMHO, beautifully reproduced by Paramount for this video release.
    Even problems which I have seen on film elements have been made transparent
    via this transfer.
    Other than an occasional speckling of minus density (negative dirt which
    prints as clear - white - on prints), a norm on negatives which have been
    mistreated and overly printed, I see no problems.
    A beautiful transfer which properly represents the film."


    --
    Jens Thomsen
    "Taste is directly proportional to experience"
     
    Jens Thomsen, Feb 29, 2004
    #6
  7. JONA99

    JONA99 Guest

    Well, I don't know who the **** Robert Harris is, and we can argue back and
    forth all night on the quality of the Godfather transfer -- as I'm sure has
    already been done ad nauseum in this newsgroup -- but I'm in the camp that
    agrees with The New York Times "When Bad DVDs Happen to Great Films" article.
     
    JONA99, Feb 29, 2004
    #7
  8. JONA99 wrote:
    > Well, I don't know who the **** Robert Harris is...


    Robert A. Harris is a film restoration expert: he restored _Spartacus_,
    _Vertigo_, _Lawrence of Arabia_, _My Fair Lady_ and _Rear Window_, among
    others:

    <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002643/>

    As someone who works professionally with film, he's got a pretty
    encyclopedic knowledge of the photochemical processes involved in
    filmmaking (and consequently, he's a fairly authoritative source as to what
    films are *supposed* to look like).

    In the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to take
    RAH's word -- and, as Jens pointed out earlier in the thread, that of
    Coppola, the film's director -- that the DVD transfer is an accurate
    representation of the intended look of _The Godfather_.

    What, exactly, is it that you think is wrong with the transfer? How do you
    believe it *should* look?

    doug

    --
    "Everything is good these days, but all of my friends are dying..."
    --Magnapop
     
    Douglas Bailey, Feb 29, 2004
    #8
  9. JONA99

    profft Guest

    I agree, I've never had any problems with disc 1 or 2

    "Jens Thomsen" <> wrote in message
    news:c1s0qi$1lu1v1$-berlin.de...
    > JONA99 wrote:
    >
    > > (As for the current transfers: No, they're NOT supposed to look like
    > > that.)

    >
    > Yes, they are. They were approved by Coppola himself.
    >
    > Robert Harris had this to say about the DVD on HTF:
    >
    > "I've just completed viewing the new DVD of The Godfather.
    > After reading the negative responses from this group, I was expecting the
    > worst.
    > Understanding that reproduction results can vary from player to player,

    I'm
    > seeing no problems whatsoever on my playback equipment.
    > The look, the texture, the color palette of the original dye transfer

    prints
    > are, IMHO, beautifully reproduced by Paramount for this video release.
    > Even problems which I have seen on film elements have been made

    transparent
    > via this transfer.
    > Other than an occasional speckling of minus density (negative dirt which
    > prints as clear - white - on prints), a norm on negatives which have been
    > mistreated and overly printed, I see no problems.
    > A beautiful transfer which properly represents the film."
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jens Thomsen
    > "Taste is directly proportional to experience"
    >
     
    profft, Feb 29, 2004
    #9
  10. JONA99

    CLOSEDOWN8 Guest

    >
    >What, exactly, is it that you think is wrong with the transfer? How do you
    >believe it *should* look?


    Some people won't be satisfied unless it looks like it was shot digitally.
    --------------------------------
    "That's the worst reverse-acting I've ever seen!" -Sam Raimi
     
    CLOSEDOWN8, Feb 29, 2004
    #10
  11. JONA99

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "CLOSEDOWN8" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >
    > >What, exactly, is it that you think is wrong with the transfer? How
    > >do you believe it *should* look?

    >
    > Some people won't be satisfied unless it looks like it was shot
    > digitally.



    This is probably the same thing as asking why _American Graffiti_ looks
    so grainy. (Check out the documentary on the original DVD for the
    answer.)

    The look of a properly mastered DVD seems to be totally dependent upon
    the look, condition and restoration of the original materials.

    It seems unlikely that a DVD could ever look better than the original
    film.
     
    Scot Gardner, Feb 29, 2004
    #11
  12. JONA99

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "JONA99" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Exactly 24 hours after I sold my Godfather Collection in anticipation of

    May
    > 11th, the Digital Bits says the reissue will be the EXACT SAME TRANSFER

    and not
    > the restoration we've been hearing about since last fall. I am now

    officially
    > and royally pissed off.


    Not to frustrate you further, but that's not new news. It was reported as
    such on Digital Bits from the very start, months ago.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Feb 29, 2004
    #12
  13. JONA99

    Werz Mungle Guest

    > It seems unlikely that a DVD could ever look better than the original
    > film.


    One of the complaints about the Citizen Kane DVD was that it looked too
    clean and smooth.
     
    Werz Mungle, Mar 1, 2004
    #13
  14. JONA99

    Theblackfox Guest

    Note the complaining poster has not been back to explain what he thinks is
    wrong with the look of the film. The reasons for this are probably simple:
    Perhaps he has actually never seen the film projected in the theater. That is
    the problem with most people who complain about transfers - they somehow don't
    want the film to look like it was shot. They blame the transfer rather than
    the director and cinematographer. And that is what DVD has given us - a bunch
    of armchair experts who know nothing at all about how films were photographed
    and printed and projected. I always laugh when I read these comments about
    excessive grain and soft contrast, when they are usually talking about older
    films with a lot of optical dissolves and films shot with heavy diffusion (lots
    of 70s films).
     
    Theblackfox, Mar 1, 2004
    #14
  15. JONA99

    Duncan Idaho Guest

    (JONA99) wrote in
    news::

    > Exactly 24 hours after I sold my Godfather Collection in anticipation
    > of May 11th, the Digital Bits says the reissue will be the EXACT SAME
    > TRANSFER and not the restoration we've been hearing about since last
    > fall. I am now officially and royally pissed off.


    As far as I'm concerned, the version I'm waiting for to appear on DVD is
    the re-edited version that combines Godfather Parts 1 & 2 and was realeased
    on VHS about 10 years ago.

    DI
     
    Duncan Idaho, Mar 3, 2004
    #15
  16. JONA99

    Card53 Guest

    >As far as I'm concerned, the version I'm waiting for to appear on DVD is
    >the re-edited version that combines Godfather Parts 1 & 2 and was realeased
    >on VHS about 10 years ago.
    >
    >DI


    That's "The Godfather Saga" version, which Coppola cobbled together when NBC
    wanted to present the two films as something of a mini-series. I used to
    prefer it myself, but I've come around to appreciating the films as they were
    originally edited much more. In the Saga, you lose the juxtaposition of the
    establishment of the family (the De Niro scenes) with the crumbling of the
    family (the Pacino scenes).

    The respective morality of father and son is also contrasted, in that young
    Vito does dishonorable things for honorable reasons (killing Don Fanucci,
    avenging the death of his family, sticking up for a poor immigrant woman in her
    fight against the landlord), whereas Michael does dishonorable things for petty
    revenge and self-protection.

    These are the elements that are lost when the story is told in strict
    chronology.

    John L.
     
    Card53, Mar 3, 2004
    #16
  17. JONA99

    1-Shot Scot Guest

    "Card53" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >As far as I'm concerned, the version I'm waiting for to appear on DVD
    >is the re-edited version that combines Godfather Parts 1 & 2 and was
    >realeased on VHS about 10 years ago.
    >
    >DI


    <<That's "The Godfather Saga" version, which Coppola cobbled together
    when NBC wanted to present the two films as something of a mini-series.
    I used to prefer it myself, but I've come around to appreciating the
    films as they were originally edited much more. In the Saga, you lose
    the juxtaposition of the establishment of the family (the De Niro
    scenes) with the crumbling of the family (the Pacino scenes).>>

    <<The respective morality of father and son is also contrasted, in that
    young Vito does dishonorable things for honorable reasons (killing Don
    Fanucci, avenging the death of his family, sticking up for a poor
    immigrant woman in her fight against the landlord), whereas Michael does
    dishonorable things for petty revenge and self-protection.>>

    <<These are the elements that are lost when the story is told in strict
    chronology. John L.>>


    I am in total agreement with you.

    I too watched the Epic in order to see the deleted scenes. Seeing part 1
    and 2 spliced together in chronological order, along with the deleted
    scenes, originally seemed like a good idea. I once advocated this
    version, but I am now convinced that, rather than enhance the original
    versions, the Epic destroys them.

    A prime example of what I'm talking about occurs in what originally was
    the final scene of_The Godfather_. This last scene of_The Godfather_ is
    one of the most powerful ever made.

    Michael has just assured Kay that none of the hysterical accusations
    made by Connie are true. Greatly relieved, Kay retreats to the adjoining
    room to prepare a couple of drinks and Michael can be seen in the
    background, leaning against the desk in his father's study. As Kay
    watches, Peter Clemenza, Al Neri and another man come into the office
    and start congratulating Michael. Neri begins to close the door just as
    Clemenza kisses Michael's hand and addresses him as "Don Corleone."
    There is a quick shot of Kay's face and her expression reveals that she
    now knows the truth. The door closes in front of her, the screen goes
    black, the Godfather theme begins and then the credits roll. The
    audience is now left to absorb the full impact of this powerful scene.

    This final scene from Godfather 1 remains in the Epic, but instead of
    being followed by a black screen, the Epic immediately jumps to a
    daylight scene from Godfather 2. The tremendous impact of the original
    closure of Godfather 1 is totally lost.

    What was once the powerful, unforgettable conclusion to _The Godfather_
    has now been reduced to being the end of a chapter. It's just not the
    same.
     
    1-Shot Scot, Mar 3, 2004
    #17
  18. JONA99

    CLOSEDOWN8 Guest

    You also have to consider that the "young Vito" content wasn't even presented
    in it's "proper" chronological order in the novel. It occurs towards the end.
    This material was never meant to serve as the introduction to Vito Corleone,
    whether in literary or cinematic terms. To call it "The Complete Novel for
    Television" is completely inaccurate.
    --------------------------------
    "That's the worst reverse-acting I've ever seen!" -Sam Raimi
     
    CLOSEDOWN8, Mar 3, 2004
    #18
  19. "CLOSEDOWN8" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <<You also have to consider that the "young Vito" content wasn't even
    presented in it's "proper" chronological order in the novel. It occurs
    towards the end. This material was never meant to serve as the
    introduction to Vito Corleone, whether in literary or cinematic terms.
    To call it "The Complete Novel for Television" is completely
    inaccurate.>>


    True. And you definitely have to go the book to get the answer to this
    problem:

    After The Turk (Solozzo) made an attempt on his father's life, Michael
    Corleone agreed to a meeting with him and his bodyguard Captain McClusky
    at an Italian restaurant located in The Bronx. During that meeting,
    Michael retrieved a hidden gun and killed, not only The Turk who was a
    top mob figure, but a New York City police captain as well. Then Michael
    Corleone fled to Sicily to avoid the heat from both the mob and the
    police. Later, after a meeting of the heads of all of the top five New
    York crime families, a peace treaty was worked out so that Michael could
    return to New York without fear of mob retribution. HOWEVER, neither of
    the movies tells how the Corleone family was able to square things with
    the police. After all, Michael had killed a police captain and the cops
    knew all about it. Michael was even accused of commiting this crime
    during the senate investigation in Part 2.

    Fortunately, this problem and many others are explained in Mario Puzo's
    book 'The Godfather' -- the greatest piece of pulp fiction ever written.
     
    One-Shot Scot, Mar 4, 2004
    #19
  20. JONA99

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "One-Shot Scot" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > True. And you definitely have to go the book to get the answer to this
    > problem:
    >
    > After The Turk (Solozzo) made an attempt on his father's life, Michael
    > Corleone agreed to a meeting with him and his bodyguard Captain McClusky
    > at an Italian restaurant located in The Bronx. During that meeting,
    > Michael retrieved a hidden gun and killed, not only The Turk who was a
    > top mob figure, but a New York City police captain as well. Then Michael
    > Corleone fled to Sicily to avoid the heat from both the mob and the
    > police. Later, after a meeting of the heads of all of the top five New
    > York crime families, a peace treaty was worked out so that Michael could
    > return to New York without fear of mob retribution. HOWEVER, neither of
    > the movies tells how the Corleone family was able to square things with
    > the police. After all, Michael had killed a police captain and the cops
    > knew all about it. Michael was even accused of commiting this crime
    > during the senate investigation in Part 2.
    >
    > Fortunately, this problem and many others are explained in Mario Puzo's
    > book 'The Godfather' -- the greatest piece of pulp fiction ever written.


    The movie makes mention of painting the police captain as a crooked cop to
    the press, same as the book.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Mar 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. iamtotal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
    iamtotal
    Sep 21, 2003
  2. Scot Gardner

    Godfather Movies: To Be Sold Separately.

    Scot Gardner, Nov 8, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    494
    Scot Gardner
    Nov 10, 2003
  3. Scot Gardner

    Godfather: New Digital Masters. Opinions?

    Scot Gardner, Nov 10, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    542
    Scanz
    Nov 15, 2003
  4. Jeff Pearson

    Godfather sound

    Jeff Pearson, May 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    812
  5. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,576
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page